tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post3559666942724989647..comments2012-01-30T22:56:18.546-08:00Comments on On meaning...: 2012: The end of the world of user interfaces as we know itYuriy Guskovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09820900060872013022noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-40483367215685036272012-01-30T22:56:18.546-08:002012-01-30T22:56:18.546-08:00Mozilla Ubiquity, Gnome-Do, Alfred, and other simi...Mozilla Ubiquity, Gnome-Do, Alfred, and other similar tools are too restrictive and aimed correspondingly for Mozilla browsers, Linux, Mac, etc. Moreover, they are text-based, which means they cannot be fully semantic.Yuriy Guskovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820900060872013022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-11821003967727169962012-01-12T21:27:42.990-08:002012-01-12T21:27:42.990-08:00Has anyone tried the Mozilla Ubiquity project? Or...Has anyone tried the Mozilla Ubiquity project? Or the Gnome-Do project? Both of these present an auto-completing semantic command line for doing "anything" (limited by what plugins are active), Ubiquity from the browser and Gnome-Do from the desktop.Graham Poulterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16072516650932490004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-46760152191536141912012-01-10T08:36:07.358-08:002012-01-10T08:36:07.358-08:00More lengthy answer in Can humans treat semantics?...More lengthy answer in <a href="http://on-meaning.blogspot.com/2012/01/can-humans-treat-semantics-can-machines.html" rel="nofollow">Can humans treat semantics? Can machines treat natural language?</a>Yuriy Guskovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820900060872013022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-48355851630343004862012-01-10T00:13:00.788-08:002012-01-10T00:13:00.788-08:00Yes, machines better treat semantics, when we are ...Yes, machines better treat semantics, when we are talking about big volume of data. However, there is a trick. Natural language text already has meaning and "references". The task for humans is just to make it more precise. Tagging is not good because it classifies information, which is arbitrary and may have many variants. Whereas identification of information is unique. Yes, humans may miscommunicate information, but this could be done with plain text too.<br /><br />Moreover, of course, human-friendly identification will occur in computers, so it will be certainly helped by machine. Moreover, identification and defining relations is not really tall order. Of course, it could be in the case of some vague or very abstract information by itself. But in this case, even text can be meaningless if you don't understand what it is talking about. But a creator of information should know meaning. Identification may sound as too elevated word, but in fact, it can be the process of choosing the right reference from several ones. Defining relations may sound elevated too, but, in fact, it is the process of just linking words to be clear what relates to what.Yuriy Guskovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820900060872013022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-51910012879859076222012-01-05T02:49:04.647-08:002012-01-05T02:49:04.647-08:00Spring Roo project provides a very interesting CLI...Spring Roo project provides a very interesting CLI which uses context effectively to present commands to a user. <br />I think we are gradually moving towards a semantic ecosystem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-45750431910205226892012-01-04T14:55:06.598-08:002012-01-04T14:55:06.598-08:00You are thinking in right direction. When you'...You are thinking in right direction. When you'll start to write some software?Georgi Y. Dimitrovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006935844236022009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-34377984188268160932012-01-04T11:46:13.976-08:002012-01-04T11:46:13.976-08:00"To make meaning work we need the following i..."To make meaning work we need the following innovations:<br />1. Human-friendly identification of meaning. Information, which usually represented as plain text, should be precisely identified (and refer to real world things or abstract conceptions). This would exclude ambiguities of natural language.<br />2. Human-friendly defining of relations. Meaning without appropriately defined relations may be incorrect. For example, "a hammer is at the second shelf in the left box" may mean that the given shelf is inside the box or this box is at the given shelf."<br /><br />This is a pretty tall order. The trouble here is humans are pretty bad at this. We constantly miscommunicate with each other because we have different assumptions about relationships or meanings attached to a term. Even the smartest of AI is going to do no better than a person at interpreting the "Sense" or the "Reference" of a given term, let alone lengthy ambiguous string of related terms. (For more on how incredibly hard a problem this is see "On sense and reference" by Gottlob Frege) Best case scenario we can implement semantic tagging systems which make best guesses possible based on the aggregate of potential meanings and relationships attached to a given term. This is an inherent limitation built into any system (humans included) which process semantic strings of input. There is no way to "exclude ambiguities of natural language" and attempts which depend on it are doomed to fail.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08525758734952014810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-40146150287757731602012-01-04T11:35:00.297-08:002012-01-04T11:35:00.297-08:00Thanks for all comments.
1. Of course, similar id...Thanks for all comments.<br /><br />1. Of course, similar ideas can come into mind of other people too. However, why, then, there is still nothing even close to SLI?<br />2. Yes, there are three interfaces: CLI, GUI, and different sorts of programming interfaces. All this covered by my articles (you can check the link above). Namely this article just omit APIs because of a lack of space. ;-)<br />3. All of you miss one simple though important point: this text is not only about interface. Semantic interface is only one of consequences of semantic ecosystem, which could covers all parts of OS, Web, etc.Yuriy Guskovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820900060872013022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-39543103389278643682012-01-03T17:04:56.850-08:002012-01-03T17:04:56.850-08:00i've thought on this for a long time as well, ...i've thought on this for a long time as well, at least since 1991, roughly when i first used X Windows. <br /><br />one way to achieve this is to make a list of keywords for each action, keywords being derived from the PATH to the action plus the keywords in the dialog box or web page where tthe action occurs. <br /><br />in the Power Options example the author has provided, we can get the following keywords relatively easily:<br /><br />Control Panel\Hardware and Sound\Power Options\Edit Plan Settings\<br />Turn off the display<br />Choose when to turn off the display<br />Power Saver<br /><br />now, if the command given (either typed or via voice) is "set monitor time out," the SLI (semantic line interface) should do this:<br /><br />make a tag cloud that includes, say, "monitor", "display", "VGA", etc. "Time out" can indicate "end", "off" etc. and so on. this is still quite brittle, but no so much as how strict things are today, viz. pathnames must be EXACT in order to perform a function. <br /><br />"go to control panel, set monitor time out to 5 mins." is easy enough to interpret with today's technology. you see this EVERYDAY when google gives you suggestions as you type in your search.<br /><br />it will probably come to an OS near you very soon. unless Chrome itself is the OS.maheshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592251178651344018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-70364541133704286772012-01-03T06:07:07.509-08:002012-01-03T06:07:07.509-08:00There are three User Interfaces....Naturally!
htt...There are three User Interfaces....Naturally!<br /><br />http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php#Primary_computer_user_interfaces:T.Rue (3seas)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01437788960252616222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-31171707115138055322012-01-03T00:48:49.813-08:002012-01-03T00:48:49.813-08:00maybe you'll find TermKit interesting: http://...maybe you'll find TermKit interesting: http://acko.net/blog/on-termkitTrueFalseNeitherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727247516335011816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-1036711357214650692012-01-02T19:53:36.029-08:002012-01-02T19:53:36.029-08:00Check out ActiveType.
http://www.scriptspot.com/...Check out ActiveType. <br /><br />http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/activetype?page=1<br /><br />It's inspired by applications such as The Foundry's Nuke and Sideshow's Houdini. In both applications you press a button and then type in the command (with autocomplete lists). So if you want to blur you simply press "TAB, bl, ENTER" and a blur node is created. <br /><br />ActiveType for 3ds Max of course combines the two as well, however I do like the idea of implementing dynamic GUI controls in your example. <br /><br />The challenge though is the same as trying to 'pilot' someone else using a computer.Gavin Greenwalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04280334911647992834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8433474582985192364.post-55559747785877013372012-01-02T17:57:39.768-08:002012-01-02T17:57:39.768-08:00Hi,
this is interesting. I have thought about this...Hi,<br />this is interesting. I have thought about this topic very much.H4ck3rm1k3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04484528013589914857noreply@blogger.com